Here a point, the hipocracy of the paper...what they did, we consider reckless, irresponsible, and putting people in danger (and the list/map cuts both ways, it shows who has permits, and who doesn't). And they are saying "we have a First Amendment right to do this!" And, they are correct, the do have the right.

However, we are not saying they have to be shut down. We are not saying they have to be banned. All we want is them to be responsible. All our rights have limitations, which we, as responsible people recognize.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, etc....

But the media is not saying we need to be responsible, they are saying we need to be abolished. No guns. No gun owners. Guns are bad. They hurt people.

Well, when someone gets killed, because a thief/rapist/what have you broke into their home, instead of one on the map, where he had been told there was a permitted handgun, then isn't the paper just as responsible? Should we then cry for newspapers to be banned? Or, just restricted in what they can print?

They have a right to what they are doing. They have a responsibility to do no harm. We have a right to what we are doing. And we have great responsibility. IF it is the correct thing to take away our rights because some individual was grossly irresponsible, then it is the correct thing to take their rights also.

"Hey, you can't compare mass murder to a newpaper story!!!"

Can't you? Harm is harm. What varies is the degree. IF the principle is valid, then it is valid. If it isn't, then shut the hell up about banning guns!

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.